| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#32
November 10th 04, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 09 Nov 2004 12:26:50 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 5 Nov 2004 17:31:32 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: snip Here, from the FCC R&O, is what that money bought us: "We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant the special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and maritime safety operations. While we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing emergency communications," it described typical amateur operations as "routine communications and hobby activities." Oh oh. We've been caught. The FCC said the dreaded "hobby" word. Then we should grab that ball and run with it! Run with what? With a revised definition of what ham radio is all about, and its importance in today's world. To paraphrase Orwell, the FCC sees all license holders as equal, but some are more equal than others.....amateur radio apparently being on the 'less than equal' side of the equation......non-essential, per se. I don't know about the Orwellian part ("Animal Farm" reference well-done and duly noted) but it's hard to argue that all of amateur radio is more important or even equal with, say, maritime or aeronautical safety communications. What I see FCC saying is just that those safety communications deserve the most protection. Of course the idea that *any* licensed service does not have absolute protection from interference caused by an unlicensed, incidental radiator is the real problem. And it's not a "science" problem but a "political" problem. Most of what goes over the internet is "routine communications and hobby activities" isn't it? ...which has what relevance to the topic of amateur radio and BPL? BPL is being touted as something we *need*, for some reason or other. Why do we *need* high speed internet via BPL at all? Why is such access so needed that licensed radio services must tolerate interference from BPL systems? IOW, what will BPL do that is so much more important - more "vital" - than ham radio and other licensed radio services? Jim, it looks like your "it's an avocation, not a hobby" arguement didn't work - they seem to have seen right through it and figured out what Amateur Radio is anyway! Nice try, though. I say we go forward on all fronts - hobby, avocation, public service, education, emergency comms, tinkering, advancing SOTA, etc. If they're gonna call us hobbyists, then make it a badge of honor, same as was done with the title "ham operator". Nice flag waving, Jim, but is there a strategy behind that lofty statement? I'm following K0HB's "PBI" concept. Come up with ideas and see where they lead. Go forward how, with what, to whom, and to what goals and objectives? Publicity, for one. How we present ourselves to Congress, the FCC, and our BPL opponents, for another. I've seen plenty of "Sportsmen for Bush" and "Sportsmen for Kerry" bumperstickers. By folks who hunt and fish for "a hobby". Or was that just a "one for the Gipper" thing that you thought sounded real cool? Nope. The regulatory folks have made it pretty clear - do you have a plan to have them overruled somehow? By whom? - the decision on BPL is entirely within their sphere of control. Congress is one avenue. Another is simply to make amateur radio more visible and better understood. And this goes beyond the BPL battle. Take CC&R struggles - would they try to ban other "hobbies"? CC&Rs are outside the jurisdiction of the FCC, I believe..... Exactly! I like the term "antenna-hugger" myself. Great! Just wait until the FCC helps the ARRL complete the sequel to their most popular book (entitled "2 Meters And Down - Amateur Radio In The 21st Century"). The little antennas for our only remaining bands will be much easier to hug! Actually, I see the VHF/UHF allocations as being much more threatened by reallocation than HF. --- The phrase I object to is "*just* a hobby" - which denies the components of public service, education, etc. Which, unfortunately, is what the FCC R&O quoted above boils down to - no special protection warranted, it's just a hobby activity. *Most* amateur communications aren't emergency communications. Never have been. The emergency communications aspect was dismissed pretty neatly in their statement.....the condescending "while we recognize..." line. My point is simply that the FCC isn't buying the argument that we hams need complete protection from BPL because we *sometimes* do emergency communications. Neither do the CC&R folks. So we need a new tactic. Like the "Sportsmen for X" folks. Part of which is a revised definition that shows how unique and valuable a resource amateur radio is - just like the park system. Even though I'll probably never visit most of the nation's parks, they are of value to me. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Threaded Mode
